SQE will not ensure high standards or widen access to profession, argues leading academic

A leading academic has joined the chorus of criticism directed at the proposed new Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), saying that it is “too good to be true”.

The SQE is being proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as a way to ensure the same high standards are being met across all pathways to qualifying as a solicitor, from the traditional university and Legal Practice Course (LPC) route to ‘equivalent means’ and legal apprenticeships. Although it will no longer be compulsory to have a degree or have passed the LPC to become a solicitor, the SRA hopes that the new ‘super exam’ will ensure that all pathways are regarded as equal by employers and produce the same high standard of lawyer.

However, David Dixon, senior lecturer at Cardiff Law School, has joined the cacophony of criticism directed at the new proposals from across the legal profession and academia. Observing that the SRA’s own review into legal education and training found the current system to be fundamentally sound, Dixon questions the point of ushering in so much upheaval. Writing in the Law Society Gazette, Dixon argues: “[The SRA] is concerned about the quality of legal services and the consistency of rigour and marking on the QLD [qualifying law degree] and LPC, it wishes to widen access to the profession and it is concerned by the cost of qualifying. The SQE does not resolve any of these issues. Like many radical solutions to non-existent problems, it is misconceived…The SQE fails to resolve every issue which persuaded the SRA to recommend it.”

Read Dixon’s article and take in his full argument here.